The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Central and State governments to complete the process of appointing Information Commissioners within three weeks [Anjali Bharadwaj & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.].

The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said it had no reason to doubt that the Union government would follow the guidelines laid down in Anjali Bharadwaj v. Union of India and complete the selection of commissioners within the stipulated period.

It directed all States with pending vacancies to also complete their selection processes within 3 weeks and file compliance reports by November 17. The Chief Secretary of Jharkhand was told to ensure completion of the process within 45 days.

The Court was hearing a plea regarding large-scale vacancies in the Central and State Information Commissions.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, said that despite repeated directions from the Court, the Central Information Commission (CIC) and several State Commissions were functioning either with very few members or had become completely defunct.

Bhushan said the failure to appoint commissioners had effectively paralysed the RTI regime. He told the bench that nearly 30,000 appeals and complaints were pending before the CIC alone.

He argued that governments were “destroying the RTI” by not appointing commissioners and by failing to follow a transparent selection process.

In response, Justice Kant observed that sometimes suitable people do not apply for these positions, and therefore, the Court could not assume bad faith in every case.

“Sometimes people don’t apply. We can’t doubt everything. We exercise suo motu powers in case of senior designations because people don’t apply," he said.

Bhushan insisted that the only way to ensure credibility was to make the process transparent by disclosing the names of applicants and shortlisted candidates.

“They should put out the names of people who have applied, and if people who have not applied are appointed, then at least their names should be put out. There is no transparency. RTI is all about transparency,” he said.

Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Union of India, assured the Court that no appointments have been made yet and that the search committee will first report it suggestions to the selection committee which will then take the final call. He said the concerns raised by the petitioners could be considered after the selection was completed.

Bhushan, however, pointed out that such assurances had been given for years without tangible progress.

He said the Centre had not complied with the Court’s earlier order of January 7, 2025, which required the government to file an affidavit disclosing the shortlisting criteria, names of applicants, and members of the search committee.

Justice Kant clarified that the earlier direction only referred to following the “procedure contemplated” under the Anjali Bharadwaj judgment of 2019, which had laid down guidelines for transparency in such appointments.

Bhushan stressed that without publication of the shortlisting criteria and applicant list, the process lacked transparency.

“We have been waiting for the last five years. Shortlisting criteria should be put out,” he said.

Justice Kant said the Court would keep the issue of transparency open but would not stall the ongoing appointment process.

“We will keep these issues open. But let the process conclude," he said.

Bhushan continued to press for publication of the names of candidates and the shortlisting criteria before the appointments are made. He referred to a past instance where an unqualified journalist, known for praising the government, had been “air-dropped” into the post.

The bench, however, said that transparency would be ensured at the appropriate stage and that the Court would scrutinise the appointments later if an ineligible candidate was appointed.

"A person who is eligible who is not appointed and a less qualified person is appointed - that will be up for judicial review. The Act gives some qualifications," it said.

Bhushan countered that such post-facto review was inadequate.

“We are just asking for transparency. It’s the right of the people to know - to know the people who have applied, the shortlisting criteria, and the people who have been shortlisted. This should be known before appointment," he said.

Justice Kant assured that the Court would ensure transparency and that such information would eventually enter the public domain.

“We will make sure they publish this information," he said.

In its order, the bench recorded that the selection process for the Chief Information Commissioner was underway.

The Court said that the search committee had completed its exercise and that the selection committee, comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, would finalise appointments within three weeks.

The order stated that the Court had “no reason to doubt” that the Union government would adhere to the guidelines laid down in Anjali Bharadwaj v. Union of India and directed that the matter be listed after three weeks, on November 17.

For the States, the bench issued directions requiring all governments to complete pending selection processes within three weeks and to file compliance reports by the next hearing.

It further directed the Chief Secretary of Jharkhand to ensure that the pending selection process be completed within 45 days.

During the hearing, Bhushan submitted that several commissions - including those of Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh were completely defunct, while Chhattisgarh was functioning with just one commissioner despite a pendency of over 34,000 cases.

He said governments were “killing the RTI Act” by deliberately keeping posts vacant to avoid accountability.

“No government wants transparency. They say the best way to do it is not to appoint information commissioners. The Central government is also doing that," he said.

The bench took note of these concerns and said that it would continue monitoring compliance every two weeks.

“We’ll take it up every two weeks," Justice Kant said.

The matter will be heard next on November 17.

[Read Live Coverage]